5 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[TLK Valentine]

Before I came here, there were two issues in the Bible I didn't quite understand.

1. How Jesus was mocked during His trials.
2. Why the Bible says not to "cast our pearls before swine, else they will trample them and turn and rend us."

Now I fully understand.

Apparently understanding and learning from it are two different things.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The verse has always been about belief. It's the different answers that are said that I learn so much. You said it, but no longer claim it. Why? Only you know the truth. Others say it, yet assure me or any audience here, they are not followers. I am intrigued by these reasons for leaving a faith. The top of the lists are boy meets girl, she gets pregnant, boy wants to take responsibility, girl kills baby, boy could not do anything to save his child, and believes there is no forgiveness and chooses to hide the pain.

That can't be your story; that would be weird. There are so many stories, of why christians leave the faith, yet God says he will never leave or forsake you. Let me tell you, sometimes Gods glory shines most in what we have to overcome. The bible never says wolves become sheep, it never says goats become sheep. The bible says the Good Shepherd lays his life down for the flock. There are lost sheep and they will be found. I hope and pray one day you see this.

The verse is a powerful verse. And yes I know it's context.

So all that hoo-ha was you playing games and baiting people? You do realise that is against the rules?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

So all that hoo-ha was you playing games and baiting people? You do realise that is against the rules?

What are you muttering. Where do you get, I am baiting people. The question originally was to me wether I could prove the existence of the Holy Spirit.? The verse, was one example of the difference of those who have, and those who do not have.

 

[Colleen1]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a clean up and some posts have been edited &
some posts have been deleted due to violations of the following rules:

Flaming and Harassment

● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory
nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post,
not the poster.

Off-Topic posts

• Respect and become familiar with each forum's Statement of Purpose. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose; submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion. Off Topic posts will be moved or removed.

This thread is being left open for you to enjoy. Please remember Christian Forums board rules when posting.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[In situ]

a vacuum has perimeter of influence or it would not be a vacuum. The perimeter of influence called space had to be created

Incorrect. There has not to be a preexisting space in the vacuum for this to happen because there are no such things as fields in the zero energy ground state, including a gravitational field, which means there are no such things as "space" either in the zero energy ground state...

Is that clear or do you want me to explain it further? (Note; I am not asking if this make any sense for you, because it does not for anyone... It is just a fact about the vacuum which one can choose to accept or reject).

 

[In situ]

cold is the absence of heat.

This is like saying that centimeters are the absence of meters...

 

[In situ]

In a nothing state you have darkness and cold which is the state of nothing.

Care to show any mathematics to support this asserted truths?

(Can hint you about that the universe has cooled down since the Big Bang, which implies in that "nothing" it came from it was pretty hot and as well crammed with photons...so neither as cold or dark as you suggest it should be... also to add is that a vacuum itself has a temperature, as well a charge - which can, and has been, measured).

 

[In situ]

When science tries to recreate the two pieces that collided to provide life as they know it, at best would have to follow the same physics and laws that were set from the beginning.

Basically in order to make the same good batch of chocolate chip cookies all ingredients, and the way they were added and mixed together, and size and heat of oven and position on tray would have to be the same.

No idea what your trying to say here or even how this is even remotely relevant to what I wrote....

So, "Nothing" is more then the absence of light and heat (energy).

Again, care to show any mathematics to support your assertions?

 

[In situ]

This thread has undergone a clean up and some posts have been edited &
some posts have been deleted due to violations of the following rules:
​

Good I been away for a while then so I don't have to read all those posts...

 

[In situ]

Didn't it ask how abiogenesis works (or came from)?

To pretend there are no tentative answer is either based on ignorance or dishonesty... Based on our current understanding and observations their are many plausible and likely scenarios on how life may have emerged.

In fact, there are so embarrassingly many tentative explanations and we do not know how to rule them out - yet - so we cannot for sure say it was this way or that way it happen.

Besides that, one will never be able to account for a perfect detailed answer in any historical science but history will always be subject for a unclear picture in the details. What we at best can achieved in historical science is a gross outline of major events and obviously there will always be revision when new data is collected. I mean do you doubt the druids existed in Brittania before the Romans came due the the lack of knowledge about them and their cultures?

This is in particular true for abiogenesis. To request that all question to be answered, and to be 100% correct, before accepting abiogenesis as a fact is just, if not illiterate, at a minimum plain silly...

 

[In situ]

The only question in the video that seems "difficult" to answer is the question regarding the Big Bang, and that's because it tries to phrase the question in a way to suggest that the Big Bang was an atheistic creation ex nihilo. The Big Bang isn't inherently atheistic, and many ministries encourage people not to use it as an infallible argument for God's existence because of the chance that it wasn't the actual creation event of the Universe (at least not with the term Universe used to describe everything material that exists). It may not have been an ex nihilo event at all.

I agree, a deity has not been ruled out by physics yet. However, an afterlife has been ruled out by now... (That is, concluded, if you accept Quantum Field Theory and the observational data from particle physics).

 

[In situ]

Science doesn't know how life originated. There are many things science is still ignorant of which is why scientists do research.

Perhaps, but to try make this to look like there are no valid answers to the question of abiogenesis, i.e. that scientist stands dumbfounded to the question, is either based on ignorance or dishonesty...

 

[In situ]

Do you really think that the mysteries of faith can be answered via the physical nature of science?

Yes, because it has been partly answered already... and we start to get a clearer picture from anthropology, sociology and psychology why people tend to be religious and it has been known for long already in psychology why people, in general, tends to believe in fictions or fabulations .

True ignorance is the rejection of the supernatural because it doesn't conform to natural laws; because that implies an understanding of the properties of neither.

Translation for naturalists: accept anything, question nothing, and it will becomes true for you.

 

[In situ]

Then of the five questions, the score so far is: OP 1, Evolutionists 0?

The claim was that evolutionist was baffled and could not come up with an answer to any of them. Hence; OP 0 - Evolutionist 5.

 

[In situ]

God is eternal. He has always existed. He spoke the universe into existence not from nothingness, but from the will of God.

Moving the goalposts now, are we not?

 

[In situ]

Faith is the belief in that which is not proven. You have faith in evolution, we have faith in God.

Evolution is a proven fact, no need to have faith in it...

 

[In situ]

clay jar is not greeater than the potter, nor is a painting greater than the artist.

Would you mind to explain what inanimated objects has to do with the origin of life as it is not really clear to me....

 

[In situ]

So, what is wrong with the bible? To you it's a theory. To me it's the truth.

The bible as a "theory", what do you mean with that? Besides that, nothing is wrong with the Bible, it is just a collection of books/stories. It is like asking, what is wrong with the story of Romeo and Juliette... what do one mean with such a question?

 

[In situ]

If God came to the earth, would you believe?

If unicorns and pink elephants walked around in your backyard, would you believe?

Asking such tautological hypothetical questions are both pointless and fruitless!

Naturalists accepts facts/observations as true.. not ideas or possibilities.

 

[In situ]

However, it DOES require the faith that the only truth is in the provable, physical world.

You said you had no proof...but then you also said you had evidence. But having evidence implies having a proof. So what is the case here; do you have a proof or not, or do you just contradict yourself again?

If God DOES exist, you're out of luck.

Are you saying you believe due to fear?

If Thor and Odin exists - you are out of luck....

Is there any other word games you like to play?